Re: Fuse
Re: Fuse
- Subject: Re: Fuse
- From: Amanda Walker <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 10:21:59 -0400
On May 21, 2007, at 8:05 AM, Dan Shoop wrote:
Production is about maintaining and running operations according to
set service levels using established procedures and methods.
Ad-hoc operations are not established or standard operating methods.
That places the two rather at opposites.
I'm not sure I follow how this relates to FUSE, however.
FUSE is just a well defined API for implementing a file system in a
userspace process rather than in the kernel--it is to file systems
what pseudoterminals (ptys) are to character devices. If anything,
by defining a stable (and OS-independent) API, FUSE is less "ad hoc"
than the methods used for implementing userspace file systems in
userspace in the past (webdav, the automounter, and so on).
Now, this certainly makes it easier to prototype a new file system
implementation than writing a kernel VFS plugin is, but that's
orthogonal to the quality of any given implementation, which is what
matters for whether or not you'd use it in production. And since a
defect in the file system module won't cause a kernel panic, one
could argue that at any given quality level, a userspace
implementation may well be *more* robust than a kernel implementation.
Amanda Walker
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Fuse
- From: Andre-John Mas <email@hidden>
| References: | |
| | >Fuse (From: Andre-John Mas <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Fuse (From: Dan Shoop <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Fuse (From: Filipe Cabecinhas <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Fuse (From: Dan Shoop <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Fuse (From: Uli Kusterer <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Fuse (From: Dan Shoop <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Fuse (From: Uli Kusterer <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Fuse (From: Dan Shoop <email@hidden>) |